LDS Personal Faith Crisis- 2013 study

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

I just read through the reports and found them quite honest.  The details probably won't be a surprise to anyone here. 

There are 3 different reports.  The Faith Crisis Report prepared for Dieter Uchtdorf in 2013, The Faith Crisis Chronicles which are stories collected for the 2013 survey, and the Presentation at BYU-H. I found this list from the report extremely comprehensive.   

 

Phaedrus 

I have to admit- that IS a pretty darn good list.

[california boy]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

I just don't get why you think this is good parenting technique for custodial parents that have full control on establishing their child's home, educational, and religious environment.  I am going to put my effort into teaching my children the best knowledge I have, whether spiritually based or scientific or psychological or whatever.  Why would I be happy with them learning stuff I believed was wrong and not correct that info, especially if I thought believing it could lead to harmful personal relationships later in their lives?

It would be like allowing a child to eat contaminated food when I knew they needed a healthy variety of good quality food in order to avoid sickness.

I would be fighting to put my kid in the best school I could afford to give them a strong educational foundation.  Why would I do less for a spiritual foundation?

Because unlike contaminated food, not everything the church does will kill you or make you sick.  There is no church that is perfect.  Should we keep children from attending all churches until a perfect one appears?  The purpose of attending any church is to draw one closer to God.  For some, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does a good job of that.  For others, another church might be better suited.  It is a personal choice, not something that should be dictated by a parent.  Each of my children have different needs.  A good parent, imo, does what is best for each child.  That might be different for each child.  It also might be different for the parents need.  

To tie this back into this thread, if a parent becomes disillusioned with the church to the point that they can no longer believe the claims of the church, and believe that Joseph Smith was a fraud, should they fight tooth and nail for their children to stay away from the church?  Should they forbid their spouse from attending because they believe it is all nonsense?  Just how far would you fight to dissuade someone from being a part of the church?  

Or would you leave matters of faith up to each member of your family to figure out on their own what is best for them.

Edited October 31, 2018 by california boy

[Calm]

“Or would you leave matters of faith up to each member of your family to figure out on their own what is best for them.”

Do you let your 8 year old decide what school to go to or to not go to school at all?

—

when parents don’t agree, then compromise makes sense. When they do agree, why wouldn’t they place their child in the best environment they know of?  You have said in the past that the Church was the worst one for gays. So you would be sending your child knowingly to what you believe is a faith that will teach them to view yourself and your partner in wrong ways. How is that good for your child?

Edited October 31, 2018 by Calm

[ALarson]

11 hours ago, blueglass said:

With the issues related to polygamy/polyandry many of the faithful believing scholars also express frustration with the problems.  

Richard Bushman (Rough Stone Rolling):  "Nothing confuses the picture of JS's character more than these plural marriages.  What lay behind this egregious transgression of conventional morality?  What drove him to a practice that put his life and his work in jeopardy, not to mention his relationship with Emma? "

Terryl Givens:  NPR interview responding to "A heavenly being visited the founder of the Mormon church commanding him to take multiple wives, - twice he refused, but on the angel's third visit that angel came wielding a  sword and so Joseph eventually relented."  Terryl givens - do you swallow it?  "I don't know as an historian we don't have real good confirmatory evidence.  Doctrinally or theologically I find some problems with it, it doesn't sound like a very meek, gentle and persuasive angel, it sounds like a different kind of influence that is being exercised there. it seems inconsistent with the kind of God, and the kind of influence that generally is exercised in any righteous context that the Lord approves of."  

Sam Brown (In Heaven as It Is on Earth, and husband of Kate Holbrook who appeared on Quentin Cook Nauvoo Face to face recently with Matt Grow)

Interview w/ Russell Stevenson:  "You also show how death culture might have influenced Joseph's views of polygamy.  Obviously this plays into the idea of collective salvation.  Can we really draw a serious connection between polygamy and Joseph Smith's fear of death?"   Sam Brown:  "Polygamy is a mess.  I don't mean to by feeling like I've got an account of where it comes from theologically - I don't mean to smooth over the fact that people's hearts broke, and even now, people's hearts break about polygamy."
 
Laura Hales (responding to new seminary/institute courses which utilize polygamy essay information):
"Students will not be taught God commanded Joseph to marry teenagers, which is good because there is no evidence that he was ever commanded to marry teen aged brides, even though he did."

Andrea Radke Moss (interview on radiowest 2014):  When speaking about her frustrations with the Nauvoo polygamy essay said  that we should seek a “middle ground in how we see this” and concede that at least in 30% of the marriages Joseph had “sexual motivations for him exploring this very radical institution/revelation” i.e. we’re dealing with a “complex Joseph”.

Jana Riess (NPR interview):  Jana Riess what did you think when you heard this  "I have problems with it and . . . it's very convenient, I believe a lot of things, but this was hard to swallow."  

 

Thanks for the quotes.  I agree with what they state.  Polygamy is still a huge issue for me and I believe it was a mistake (and it's still causing tremendous damage to the church and to member's testimonies when they learn the details regarding how Joseph and others lived it).  

I read many of the personal experiences in this publication (towards the end) and so many of them discovered the truth regarding polygamy as their first step in their faith crisis (nearly all that I read).  Then they began to study and read more about true church history and things fell apart for them.  

I plan on reading the rest of these experiences today and am also interested in where they ended up (still active or leaving), how some have still made being active work for them and also the recommendations they give to the leaders regarding how to treat those in the middle of a faith crisis or what they could do to avoid this happening for members today.

I highly recommend reading this entire publication as it is excellent.

 

 

Edited October 31, 2018 by ALarson

[HappyJackWagon]

16 hours ago, ALarson said:

Thanks for posting this.  I'm finding it fascinating to read through and extremely accurate (from what my personal experience has been with family, friends and ward members who have had or are still going through a crisis of faith).

These were interesting to read through (and accurate, IMO):

 

It would be fascinating to see this updated to reflect the last 5-7 years. It feels like disaffection is snowballing and I don't really see any reason to believe that the trend has reversed in any significant way. As the study points out, measuring disaffection only by the number of resignations doesn't really recognize the depth of the issue. Many who are disaffected still attend regularly and of course some simply go inactive without ever resigning. It would seem additional studies would be needed to determine the ongoing severity of the problem.

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It would be fascinating to see this updated to reflect the last 5-7 years. It feels like disaffection is snowballing and I don't really see any reason to believe that the trend has reversed in any significant way. As the study points out, measuring disaffection only by the number of resignations doesn't really recognize the depth of the issue. Many who are disaffected still attend regularly and of course some simply go inactive without ever resigning. It would seem additional studies would be needed to determine the ongoing severity of the problem.

I agree and wonder if the leaders have continued with having more studies done.  I believe there are even more leaving the church now over these issues than even back when this was published.  

I do see that there have been a few efforts made to "inoculate" the members.  But, I have to say that if they responded with having histories written like the recent "Saints" book, I'm not impressed.  I have only read a bit of it, but I believe it's horribly written and lacking.  I felt like I was reading a book written for a child and honestly could not even continue.

We have actually had some extremely TBM members who are reading this book (since it's been so highly publicized and really pushed by the leaders to have all members read it) talk to the Bishop about it.  Some have been very upset with what is in it and one even feels that it's written to make Joseph look like a "scoundrel" (their word).  Others are upset with how poorly written it is, how it jumps around and does not give complete information (leaving out many details and complete truths).  

So, if that book is a result of this study, the leaders need to do more and do it better, IMO.  

Edited October 31, 2018 by ALarson

[ALarson]

One thing that the members (who responded to this study by writing their personal experience) stated was that they want to hear the truth from the leaders.  They believe the leaders know the truth regarding church history and wish they'd get honesty from the leaders themselves. 

Here are just a few of the quotes regarding this:

Quote

Do you expect me to believe that my four sisters and I could go to church from primary through seminary and BYU and not know how our own Book of Mormon was produced? Please stop with the apologetics as well. FAIR and the Maxwell Institute contributed to my leaving the church. Sincere believing members want to hear [about troubling issues] from the leaders they set apart as prophets, seers and revelators.

 

Quote

If the church wants to keep me, they have to come clean with our past and stop pretending it is perfect. I can accept flaws but I don’t want to be lied to. The top leaders need to be the one to tell about the seer stones in the hat, that the ban on the priesthood was wrong. They need to get out of the bedrooms. They need to be more transparent about tithing and stop making it all about the money. The church needs to be honest. I want to make it work

 

Quote

Had the church leaders taught me the real version of church history while growing up, I would have not experienced my faith crisis. It is ridiculous that I could be born and raised in the church, attend seminary, institute, BYU, and go on a mission, yet never know about the real version of church history. The church leaders should NOT be afraid to tell the truth and let the consequence follow. It can be done in a faith-promoting manner in most instances. In instances where past church leaders were clearly in the wrong, church leaders should admit to the mistakes and apologize for them. I think that they will be surprised at how well that would be received by the general membership. We are adults here - adults tell the truth, apologize for wrongs, and take ownership. The church leaders should try it sometime. They might be amazed at the amount of healing and goodwill such actions would generate.

 

Quote

The one thing the church could do is to be honest with its members. I have too many examples where dishonesty exists in the church leaders for sake of being faith promoting. They look deceitful when they are not being open. When someone only give part of the truth and lets someone believe something that is not true, even when they were only silent in not sharing the information, it looks like they are disingenuous. It looks like they are being dishonest.

 

Quote

I love history and started studying some church history on the computer. Blacks and the priesthood was one of the first things and I saw many things wrong with what I had been taught and how things really were. The three witnesses came next and the same thing. As I read one thing, another issue would come up, Joseph Smith and all his wives and their issues, the Book of Abraham, the different First Vision accounts, and many more. None of this is taught at church nor is it talked about in General Conference. I felt like the church had lied about some things, whitewashed others, and misrepresented many things in art and in every aspect. I also felt like I had done the same on my mission and most of my church life. I did it out of not knowing the truth. I think that is true for most ordinary members but I am sure the top leaders know the real history and that is what makes it so troubling for me.

 

[hope_for_things]

39 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It would be fascinating to see this updated to reflect the last 5-7 years. It feels like disaffection is snowballing and I don't really see any reason to believe that the trend has reversed in any significant way. As the study points out, measuring disaffection only by the number of resignations doesn't really recognize the depth of the issue. Many who are disaffected still attend regularly and of course some simply go inactive without ever resigning. It would seem additional studies would be needed to determine the ongoing severity of the problem.

My personal speculation is that the church is starting to shift the tactics a bit.  Now that the essays have been deployed and the Saints narrative and JSP, they can refer people to those products where necessary.  What I see them emphasizing more now, and I expect an increase of this in the future as well, is the idea that people should avoid social media, be skeptical of information on the internet, and avoid critical sources.  There will be increased demonization of these things in the future.  

Unfortunately, I think the Trump phenomenon in the USA and increasing polarization of our politics are contributing factors to this trend.  People everywhere aren't engaging with critics, they are shielding themselves from critical inquiry about issues and looking for validation of current beliefs instead.  Algorithms are also contributing to this as our preferences are being selected for us and we're increasingly not exposed to alternative perspectives.  

I don't like how these trends are converging for our culture today.  Its a bad sign.  I think that messages from many church leaders are following right along with these trends. 

[hope_for_things]

40 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree and wonder if the leaders have continued with having more studies done.  I believe there are even more leaving the church now over these issues than even back when this was published.  

I do see that there have been a few efforts made to "inoculate" the members.  But, I have to say that if they responded with having histories written like the recent "Saints" book, I'm not impressed.  I have only read a bit of it, but I believe it's horribly written and lacking.  I felt like I was reading a book written for a child and honestly could not even continue.

We have actually had some extremely TBM members who are reading this book (since it's been so highly publicized and really pushed by the leaders to have all members read it) talk to the Bishop about it.  Some have been very upset with what is in it and one even feels that it's written to make Joseph look like a "scoundrel" (their word).  Others are upset with how poorly written it is, how it jumps around and does not give complete information (leaving out many details and complete truths).  

So, if that book is a result of this study, the leaders need to do more and do it better, IMO.  

Wow, what you're hearing about members reading Saints is fascinating.  I find it amusing that someone thought Saints made Joseph look like a scoundrel, because I thought exactly the opposite, like they are constantly propping him up and making him look like a super hero figure.  He's always the calm and collected one in the room.  

All of this slow approach to inoculation is so frustrating to me.  Its like tearing the band-aid off so very slowly.  Just rip that thing off, be completely honest about church history.  Apologize and admit that leaders are just regular people like your local Elders Quorum president.  Be humble about it, and then make the case for trying to do good in the world.  Yes, some people would fall away, but it would be a clean break, and we could get on with things and move forward in a positive direction with integrity.  

[JulieM]

23 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Apparently the results of this study was shared with the brethren in 2013. I can't confirm that, it's only what I've heard. But I find it interesting and I can see evidence that leaders began speaking more directly about the issue of faith crisis after 2013. It appears some of the recommendations of the study have been accepted while I don't see any evidence that others have been accepted. For example...

What are your thoughts?

I’m just starting to read through this.  Wow!  It’s really great and spot on.

Who did they give this to, do you know?  Did the local leaders receive it or just the general leaders?

Also, who released it now (and why, if you know)?

 

Edited October 31, 2018 by JulieM

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I’m just starting to read through this.  Wow!  It’s really great and spot on.

Who did they give this to, do you know?  Did the local leaders receive it or just the general leaders?

Also, who released it now (and why, if you know)?

 

These are great questions, I would like to know more about this too, can anyone provide some more insight?  

[phaedrus ut]

40 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I’m just starting to read through this.  Wow!  It’s really great and spot on.

Who did they give this to, do you know?  Did the local leaders receive it or just the general leaders?

Also, who released it now (and why, if you know)?

 

From the introduction it says 

Quote

Report prepared for Dieter Uchtdorf in 2013, presented to him by Marlin Jensen. The report includes a recap of their 2011 research and was meant to inform him and other general authorities so they could better understand what is happening (and take appropriate measures to compassionately address it).

Seems to be just a few in leadership. 

 

Phaedrus 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, phaedrus ut said:

From the introduction it says 

Seems to be just a few in leadership. 

 

Phaedrus 

Well, I was wondering if it was created for Uchtdorf, whether that means it would be shared in a committee setting with the rest of leadership.  I would think that is very likely.  

[RevTestament]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

“Or would you leave matters of faith up to each member of your family to figure out on their own what is best for them.”

Do you let your 8 year old decide what school to go to or to not go to school at all?

—

when parents don’t agree, then compromise makes sense. When they do agree, why wouldn’t they place their child in the best environment they know of?  You have said in the past that the Church was the worst one for gays. So you would be sending your child knowingly to what you believe is a faith that will teach them to view yourself and your partner in wrong ways. How is that good for your child?

I believe it is always best for a child to learn right and wrong. To the extant that gay parents are open enough to let someone teach their child some opposing views, I think that says a lot about them and their desire for their child to learn different viewpoints and to learn coping skills. I want my child to learn about the Roman government and its weaknesses and strengths - why we may not wish to repeat their mistakes, and what their mistakes were. So, even though I do not agree with their societal teachings, I want my child to learn of them. 

However, I honestly believe the Church is concerned about that child making a fuss in class. About that child teaching that the choices of their parents are OK - whether they be a polygamous lifestyle or gay lifestyle. IDK, maybe I'm wrong. i just think it is somewhere the Church doesn't wish to go right now.

[Calm]

Quote

I want my child to learn about the Roman government and its weaknesses and strengths - why we may not wish to repeat their mistakes, and what their mistakes were. So, even though I do not agree with their societal teachings, I want my child to learn of them. 

But would you want them to learn by having them go week after week for all of their youth to a community that believed the Roman government was correct and that it didn't make any major mistakes?

 

[RevTestament]

On 10/30/2018 at 10:36 AM, cinepro said:

Quote

Place Church history back into the adult curriculum (Relief Society and Priesthood) and provide members a framework for better understanding complicated Church history.

Wow. That's quite a study.  It looks like many of their ideas were adopted (not saying that they were the source of the idea, of course), except for the last one:

Looks like we're heading in the other direction on that one.

I'm actually somewhat inclined to agree. Perhaps the Church has gotten so used to proclaiming "the truth" that it is uncomfortable with the realities of history - that it is seen differently through the eyes of different people. I actually think this is a needed topic. This is an opportunity to teach about things like "Mormonism Unvailed" and learn to present alternative facts and viewpoints. I think that is important for the long term health of the saints. It would also better equip them to answer the charges of critics which people now normally see when they go to the internet to research things. Instead, the Church has stepped away from talking about JS's polygamy and many other issues. This leaves members to research them on their own - and some end up like Jeremy Runnells. Placing Joseph Smith up on the perfection pedestal, doesn't do the Church any good in the long run, and I think members should be allowed to discuss his faults openly. I'm just not convinced, they are really ready for such an approach yet. Clearly as a teenager he had some faults or Moroni wouldn't have made him jump through so many hoops before seeing the plates. Is it really better to leave individual members to puzzle these things out themselves knowing that some, like Jeremy Runnells will leave? is it more damaging to leave an impression that Church leaders are perfect or to acknowledge they are not - gasp? I think the Church has a tough time with that balance. History should help bring some perspective.

[Jeanne]

My only question is....why would a true church require strategy and tactics?

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I'm actually somewhat inclined to agree. Perhaps the Church has gotten so used to proclaiming "the truth" that it is uncomfortable with the realities of history - that it is seen differently through the eyes of different people. I actually think this is a needed topic. This is an opportunity to teach about things like "Mormonism Unvailed" and learn to present alternative facts and viewpoints. I think that is important for the long term health of the saints. It would also better equip them to answer the charges of critics which people now normally see when they go to the internet to research things. Instead, the Church has stepped away from talking about JS's polygamy and many other issues. This leaves members to research them on their own - and some end up like Jeremy Runnells. Placing Joseph Smith up on the perfection pedestal, doesn't do the Church any good in the long run, and I think members should be allowed to discuss his faults openly. I'm just not convinced, they are really ready for such an approach yet. Clearly as a teenager he had some faults or Moroni wouldn't have made him jump through so many hoops before seeing the plates. Is it really better to leave individual members to puzzle these things out themselves knowing that some, like Jeremy Runnells will leave? is it more damaging to leave an impression that Church leaders are perfect or to acknowledge they are not - gasp? I think the Church has a tough time with that balance. History should help bring some perspective.

Really good points, I agree with you.  I think the new Saints narrative tells us that the current church leaders have quite a ways to go on this topic of not putting JS up on a pedestal.  I was quite disappointed with the portrayal of JS in that narrative.  He's not presented as a multi dimensional and flawed human being, and there isn't much nuance introduced in the narrative.  While they do broach topics that haven't been broached as often in times past, the way the narrative is written doesn't allow for multiple interpretations of complicated history, but instead builds on evidence that always seems to paint the church and particularly JS in a very positive light.  I was very disappointed with what I read.  

[hope_for_things]

27 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

My only question is....why would a true church require strategy and tactics?

Its the expectations that are the problem.  The church has declared that it is being steered by God himself.  That's way too high of a bar to start with, and all the evidence shows that its a very human run institution.  If God were directly in charge of any group, and God is supposedly a perfect being, that group would be so amazingly different than the rest of the human run institutions it would be clear as a bell to everyone on earth that this institution is uniquely different.  

[Jeanne]

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Its the expectations that are the problem.  The church has declared that it is being steered by God himself.  That's way too high of a bar to start with, and all the evidence shows that its a very human run institution.  If God were directly in charge of any group, and God is supposedly a perfect being, that group would be so amazingly different than the rest of the human run institutions it would be clear as a bell to everyone on earth that this institution is uniquely different.  

Thank you...this makes sense to me and now I can look at things a different way. 

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Thank you...this makes sense to me and now I can look at things a different way. 

You're welcome.  Its true if you think about it.  God sees the future perfectly, so any problems coming down the road for society would be deftly avoided by that institution.  That institution would be out in front on every single issue, leading the way with that kind of foreknowledge.  That institution would never have corruption or make major mistakes.  Even if the communication from God were somewhat imperfect, lets say that the leaders only have a 50% effective rate of understanding the directions from God.  If any institution had foreknowledge about the future 50% of the time it would be so far ahead of the competition in every respect, it would be an incomparable competitive advantage.  

[clarkgoble]

On 10/30/2018 at 12:37 PM, Calm said:

Revelations in Context perhaps doing it for SS and personal study instead of RS and PH?

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-releases-historical-background-doctrine-and-covenants

The D&C lesson manual last was vastly better than what they've had in years. Even the primary manual was frankly pretty good. Especially with the extra resources at lds.org. However as good as it was I think it's still insufficient. Especially relative to the goals of that document in the OP. Plus it's honestly not at all clear to me how lessons will go next year with the reduced time and new manuals. The manuals are...very brief to be polite. That's fine and actually a plus if you know your stuff. However let's be honest. Typically the teachers don't.

We'll see how things go. My impression is that the switch to the two hour block was conceived pretty recently and threw everything into a tizzy with little prepared. I'm very, very curious as to what actually pans out next year.

Clearly there's much more that the Church needs to do. This is an even bigger switch than the move in the 90's to get people to stop just quoting Joseph Fielding Smith or Bruce R. McConkie's views as lessons.

 

33 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Its the expectations that are the problem.  The church has declared that it is being steered by God himself.  That's way too high of a bar to start with, and all the evidence shows that its a very human run institution.  If God were directly in charge of any group, and God is supposedly a perfect being, that group would be so amazingly different than the rest of the human run institutions it would be clear as a bell to everyone on earth that this institution is uniquely different.  

I agree it's the expectations that are often kind of ridiculous. They're also expectations that anyone who has been in leadership usually loses quickly once they're the one responsible for receiving revelation. I don't think that means the Church isn't steered by God. Just that it's a slow moving ship with much more going on than that steering. God isn't a micromanager and a surprising number of members assume he is.

8 hours ago, ALarson said:

I do see that there have been a few efforts made to "inoculate" the members.  But, I have to say that if they responded with having histories written like the recent "Saints" book, I'm not impressed.  I have only read a bit of it, but I believe it's horribly written and lacking.  I felt like I was reading a book written for a child and honestly could not even continue.

That's because you're expecting everyone's reading level to be yours. It was explicitly designed to be understandable by not just all Americans but people in 3rd world countries. To my eyes that's extremely difficult to do and they hit the spot perfectly in terms of readability. Those with more education will undoubtedly find it frustrating and patronizing but I think that's an unfair expectation. Most histories up until now simply were unapproachable by most members. I think many people - particularly middle class people who tend to be well educated - just don't understand what the typical member is at on these things.

If anything I think Saints shows the Church is aware of that problem and maybe making the scriptures readable by the typical member is next.

 

Edited October 31, 2018 by clarkgoble

[RevTestament]

43 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Really good points, I agree with you.  I think the new Saints narrative tells us that the current church leaders have quite a ways to go on this topic of not putting JS up on a pedestal.  I was quite disappointed with the portrayal of JS in that narrative.  He's not presented as a multi dimensional and flawed human being, and there isn't much nuance introduced in the narrative.  While they do broach topics that haven't been broached as often in times past, the way the narrative is written doesn't allow for multiple interpretations of complicated history, but instead builds on evidence that always seems to paint the church and particularly JS in a very positive light.  I was very disappointed with what I read.  

I think learning to overcome one's errors and faults is a positive light. Joseph Smith was a somewhat naughty teenager. Further, his family was under some financial stress. I don't think that excuses collecting money for treasure hunting. I think fairly clearly that was one of his sins for which he needed to repent. It was deceitful and dishonest, but I think it is fairly clear it is something he did. The Lord did warn him his name would get dragged through the mud. That's a high price to pay for having a little fun. He further got shadowed by his little band of compatriots when he brought forth the real thing. Why were these ruffians after him? Because they knew him, and he had opened his big mouth. So they made things difficult for him. It was his own fault. Did he learn from this? Well, because of his need to please others, he also lost the Book of Lehi. So, no, he hadn't quite learned his lesson yet. Are we only going to acknowledge his errors to which he openly admits? JS did put his childhood gold-hunting days behind him, but he was still a flawed man even if he grew into a great man of God. I think overall the story there is uplifting - that the Lord can take any of us, and make us into something beautiful.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I agree it's the expectations that are often kind of ridiculous. They're also expectations that anyone who has been in leadership usually loses quickly once they're the one responsible for receiving revelation. I don't think that means the Church isn't steered by God. Just that it's a slow moving ship with much more going on than that steering. God isn't a micromanager and a surprising number of members assume he is.

I agree with you that experience in leadership should help change expectations, unfortunately other dynamics are at play that countermand this effect.  Things like showing loyalty to orthodoxy and showing how spiritually in tune you are as a leader are valued over candor about the reality of how inspiration actually works.  And the highest leaders aren’t making concerted efforts to counter the myths about their working directly with God as special witnesses, they seem to be happy for those myths to perpetuate.  

Lastly if God is slowly steering the ship, what measurable and objective evidence points to this?  

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

My only question is....why would a true church require strategy and tactics?

Why wouldn't they?